How should the U.S. Government replace Justice Scalia who passed away over President's Day weekend? Nominations?
Flags everywhere are at half-mast today to honor Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who passed away of natural causes over the weekend. This creates a rare opportunity for any president to appoint a replacement. According to the Constitution, Presidents appoint justices and judges when there are vacancies in the Federal Courts- but those nominations must be confirmed by the Senate. This is a great example of checks and balances.
Justice Scalia was one of the "conservative" majority of 5 justices on the court. His passing leaves 4 "conservative" justices and 4 "liberal" justices to decide cases until a 9th justice is appointed and confirmed. President Obama is a "liberal Democrat", and the majority in the Senate at this time are "conservative Republicans". So, expecting President Obama to appoint a liberal judge, Republican senators (including a number of the Republican candidates for president) are vowing to filibuster or otherwise block the appointment until after the election of the next president.
What do you think about that strategy? What does it show about the importance of the Supreme Court in the nation's politics? What does this show about checks and balances and political parties?
If Obama does get an appointment approved by the Senate before he steps down next January, a number of candidates have been suggested as worthy. Which candidate would you support and why? Here is a list:
Merrick B. Garland
Kamala D. Harris
Adalberto J. Jordan
Jane L. Kelley
Srikanth Srinivasan
Paul J. Watford
(For their backgrounds and further analysis, see this linked article from The New York Times). Other online resources are linked below.
How should the U.S. Government replace Justice Scalia who passed away over President's Day weekend? Nominations?
Flags everywhere are at half-mast today to honor Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who passed away of natural causes over the weekend. This creates a rare opportunity for any president to appoint a replacement. According to the Constitution, Presidents appoint justices and judges when there are vacancies in the Federal Courts- but those nominations must be confirmed by the Senate. This is a great example of checks and balances.
Justice Scalia was one of the "conservative" majority of 5 justices on the court. His passing leaves 4 "conservative" justices and 4 "liberal" justices to decide cases until a 9th justice is appointed and confirmed. President Obama is a "liberal Democrat", and the majority in the Senate at this time are "conservative Republicans". So, expecting President Obama to appoint a liberal judge, Republican senators (including a number of the Republican candidates for president) are vowing to filibuster or otherwise block the appointment until after the election of the next president.
What do you think about that strategy? What does it show about the importance of the Supreme Court in the nation's politics? What does this show about checks and balances and political parties?
If Obama does get an appointment approved by the Senate before he steps down next January, a number of candidates have been suggested as worthy. Which candidate would you support and why? Here is a list:
Merrick B. Garland
Kamala D. Harris
Adalberto J. Jordan
Jane L. Kelley
Srikanth Srinivasan
Paul J. Watford
(For their backgrounds and further analysis, see this linked article from The New York Times). Other online resources are linked below.
CNN- Inside Obama's Process for Replacing Antonin Scalia
Washington Post- The Battle over Replacing Justice Scalia is just the Start of a War over the Supreme Court
Politico- McConnell Throws Down the Gauntlet, No Supreme Court Replacement under Obama.